Charter Panels’ Compromise on Finances Evaporates

The prospects of putting a single new Los Angeles City Charter proposal before voters receded further Wednesday, as leaders of the city’s appointed and elected reform commissions withdrew, at least temporarily, from a compromise on oversight of city finances.

That setback, just one day after the two commissions’ chairmen had reached a tentative agreement, reflected the panels’ growing difficulty in achieving a consensus, a problem exacerbated by the tug of intense lobbying on each side.

The chairmen did agree to present four compromise proposals to a conference committee today, but those will not include recommendations involving the role of the city administrative office in preparing an annual city budget.

“We’re still working on that,” said George Kieffer, chairman of the appointed commission. “The details of that are not quite ready.”

If the commissions cannot reach an overall agreement, voters next year will face two charter proposals, each numbering hundreds of pages and together composing the largest ballot in the history of Los Angeles.

Some charter reform advocates worry that voters, faced with so much detail, will reject both proposals. Others say they are tired of trying to compromise and favor giving voters the chance to choose, particularly if compromise means having to yield on any of a few hotly contested issues.

The two commissions have labored two years to produce ideas for overhauling the city constitution, which was last rewritten in 1925.

If those efforts fail to win voter approval for an improved city government, it not only would represent a squandered opportunity but also could encourage campaigns in the San Fernando Valley, the harbor area and elsewhere to split the nation’s second-largest city into smaller municipalities.

In the case of finance issues, the commissions are caught between the vehemence of City Administrative Officer Keith Comrie, whose office now controls budget preparation, and the equally determined resistance of Mayor Richard Riordan. Riordan wants to consolidate city financial operations under the mayor’s office, while Comrie wants to keep many budget preparation duties in his office.

Each has defended his position vigorously, with Riordan arguing that consolidating operations under the mayor would improve accountability, and Comrie countering that his office provides neutral analysis that makes the budget process more credible.

On Tuesday, the chairmen of the two commissions, Kieffer and Erwin Chemerinsky of the elected panel, believed that they had reached an acceptable compromise that would transfer most budget functions to the mayor but allow Comrie’s office to continue to be the lead agency in areas such as negotiating contracts with city employee unions.

When Comrie heard of that deal, however, he objected. As the two chairmen discussed the matter further Tuesday evening, they felt that they needed to take more time to consider their approach.

Instead, the conference committee will hear tentative agreements between Chemerinsky and Kieffer that are intended to reconcile differences between their panels in four areas: public works, efforts to move money around the city bureaucracy, creation of a commission to make recommendations on redistricting for City Council seats, and a set of interrelated finance issues.

Meanwhile, faced with mounting divisiveness within his own commission, Chemerinsky wrote Wednesday to his colleagues suggesting that they relent on plans to vote next week on whether to reconsider their support for allowing the mayor to fire city department heads.

That issue has emerged at the crux of the split between the panels. Chemerinsky does not want his commission to vote now because whichever way the vote goes, it will anger opponents and potentially give them a head start in campaigning against the charter proposal that the commission produces.

The elected commission has voted to recommend that the mayor have that power, but its rules allow for reconsideration of any issue, and a growing number of commissioners want to revisit that question.

They are being urged to do so by some City Council members and representatives of municipal employee unions, but Riordan and his allies are lobbying for the commission to stay the course.

“I think we have everything to lose and nothing to gain by deciding at this time,” Chemerinsky said in a memo to his colleagues. “Those on both sides are trying to make this the defining issue. We do not need to let them do this. My hope is that by putting off reconsideration, pressures will lessen and even a compromise might emerge.”